6mm XC

[longbow3]

Hi All,

I am interested in trying the 6mm XC

Blaser are now doing it for the R93 and R8

I currently have the 6.5x55 on my licence but I have been hearing a lot of good things about the 6mm XC and a friend of mine is purchasing one of the first XC barrels to come off the Blaser factory

 

 

I am considering getting a 6mm XC barrel for one of my Blasers or trying the calibre on a new build custom rifle, but I would like some advice on the calibre before I make this big jump.

Is it hard to find brass and bullets etc.. and expensive to reload for it??

 

Ray

 

[John MH]

I have been shooting 6XC for at least the past 8 years, I have a Tubb T2k. The 6XC is an easy calibre to reload, cases can be fire formed from any quality 22-250 brass or bought from Norma as 6XC. Personally I've found the 105/107 grain weight bullets perform the best, 115 grain DTACs can be made to work but they are hard on the brass. I use N160 and have had very good results with it.

[gbal]

Ray,John MH has summarised it nicely,experience based.It's an excellent mid range/across the course -for which it was developed by top shooter David Tubb-who has tried most.It's performance is pretty close to the familiar 243,and the case is slightly shortened 243 /come 22/250.

If you have not already accessed it,see a fairly full account on Accurate Shooter site,under 6XC,for history,details and loading/brass/bullets....the works! One of the best cartridges for it's designed purpose,though not of course just restricted to that.

Gbal

[longbow3]

Fantastic.

Many thx for your help.

I went onto the Accurate shooter website and found every bit of info that I am needing.

thx to you both

:-))

[jcampbellsmith]

Hi

 

Did you get my PM? See also http://www.davidtubb.com/Articles there's some good info at the end of the article on forming 6xc cases.

 

Also see this forum - http://forum.accurateshooter.com/index.php?board=6.0

 

Regards

 

JCS

[oaken]

With the 6xc, is the gain over a tight twist .243 really worth the bother of fireforming or the bother and cost of sourcing Norma or even Tubb brass?

Rup

[jcampbellsmith]

With the 6xc, is the gain over a tight twist .243 really worth the bother of fireforming or the bother and cost of sourcing Norma or even Tubb brass?

Rup

Rup

 

Looking at my notes, I tracked down the brass locally at the end of 2011. I know a couple of folk who still have brass gathering dust in their F-Class cupboards, so I don't see the brass being an issue. If it does ever become a problem, I'll go with 6.5 x 47.

 

I have had a number of 243s, one with an Archer barrel in 1:8 and a 243 AI. It's tricky to compare past rifles with the current one due to different configuration and action quality. My Dad still holds the record with the Russell Gall 243 AI for the best group to be shot by any of my rifles without any bags or bipods. Once I've got the 6xc load tweaked, I'll get him to try it out and see what a man who is fast approaching 90 can do.

 

Regards

 

JCS

[gbal]

Rup,as JCS says,it's complicated to make a context free judgement.But for most,no it isn't worth it.

One issue is the development of special performance cartridges for the 'across the course' competitions-at one time AR15 platforms were favoured. Range much beyond 600y was not a concern,magazine loading could be an advantage,but wasn't essential for 600...and so on.Those are the sort of issues that motivated the 6XC...with considerable success.

Ditto the 243-in a standard twist and therefore bullets of modest BC,it really isn't a long range number to compete with it's fast twist,115Dtac AI chambered versions.

Whether any of this is critical,really does depend on what you realistically want to do,and what effort/risk /cost you are willing to put in/up withThere are no likely problems in easily getting 243 brass -but similarly,22/250....not always so for some cartridges.

Gbal

[baldie]

You are missing the point guys.

 

Take a look at the 6xc neck. Then take a look at a .222 , a 6.5x47 and a 6mmBr.

 

My Tubb holds 3/4" at 300 yards with fireforming loads, and on a lowly Border Archer blank, chambered by myself with the correct headspace , NOT Tubbs headspace.

 

It is an intrinsically accurate cartridge , as it has the attributes of the previously mentioned ones.

 

The .243 doesn't.

[oaken]

It is an intrinsically accurate cartridge , as it has the attributes of the previously mentioned ones.

 

So are you saying that long neck and steep shoulder are the main contributors that improve 6xc accuracy?

I appreciate that the .243 has neither.

[John MH]

The case was developed for USA High Power rifle shooting. It had to feed and extract reliably and be able push bullets up to 115 grains while allowing the shooter to maintain a constant bullet jump as the throat eroded, hence the long neck. I have found it to be very accurate but have no experience of loading .243 Winchester so cannot compare it with any first hand experience.

[gbal]

Hmmm...this might run a bit...Just what is 'THE 'point,Dave?You know better than most the complexities of accurate performance-and it is seldom down to just one factor-and there are usually exceptions anyhow-the 222,6Br and 6.5x47 are of course all 'intrinsically accurate cartridges'.and it may well be that so is the 6XC-after all,many f its predecessors were-since WW 2 we have had good wildcats based on the 22/250 case,necked up to 6mm,shoulder pushed back a bit,and body taper reduced-Harvey Donaldson's 6mm International ,being one and Walkers 6mm--250 another,both of which enjoyed some success as bench rest numbers.So the 6XC has parentage,including some more recent . It's pretty close to the 6x47 Swiss too.

It's origins are a matter of record,and are based in 'across the course'//'hi power' competition.A very detailed account of the cartridge is given in some detail by German Salazar(Accurate Shooter"/6XC for competition shooting/a prone shooter looks at the 6XC".That shows just how challenging/frustrating this cartridge has been,mainly due to non standardised dies and brass-now thankfully sorted by CIP standardisation and eg Norma brass.It's high power wins are impressive,though I imagine the bull in such competitions is rather larger than Bench rest groups at comparable distancces,so exact comparisons for precision are not readily made.But,as I said,it has impressive accuracy and is one of the best cartridges-though Salazar considers the ^BR has the accuracy edge out to 600y,with the 6XC pushing the 6.5x284 at 1000 (the 6.5x284 itself,of course,is no more the leading 1000y cartridge...).

As GS says,IF you could only have one rifle,it's a contender,but that is not so,and the different competitions really need different cartridges and platforms.

 

OK,great accuracy-"excellent mid range/across the course...but not limited to just that" (I said,and other posts have been similar,though 243 has held long range records too,not very often).

All of the teething problems seem a thing of the past (but you won't get components etc off every shelf).Ultimate accuracy-well,we could make points either way all day-it's not a PPC,nor is it among the very best 1000y precision cartridges,but it is very good,in the 6BR/6.5x47 style.It's a custom job,and there are some pretty precise rifles in that class,Dave-you make a lot of them,so it's hardly unique there.It would be a very good paper/field/fox/varmint/deer rig but so would a lot of other combinations.

There are quite a lot of points-more than perhaps the posts have raised.The 6xc is about as good as it gets for some applications,doesn't fall short on any performance criteria(especially for the serious wildcatter/reloader).But 'better' than say the 243 for the thousands of shooters of that cartridge-'not proven',is as generous as I can be,and it's certainly less convenient,less choice of platform,and considerably more expensive-and it faces pretty stiff competition from the 6.5x47 in the 'exclusive/good all round'' aficionado niche

 

Would I like a 6XC-yes...more than a 6.5x47.....no. £3000 more than a Sako 243,,not often!!

atb (you can choose what best is) :-)

 

Gbal

[baldie]

Long necked cartridges are accurate , dont ask me to explain why, because I dont know. To me, its a far more desirable attribute than a small primer a la 6.5 x 47 , or any other facet of the case. It just seems to work.

 

When some vhit 160 lands eventually, I intend to do some serious testing [ long range ] on the 6xc. Now the gun has a correctly fitted barrel, I believe it will yield much more.

 

To put the original barrel dimensions into context, I will share the dimensions its sold in , from the states, which basically are a joke.

 

The barrel headspaces at 0.018" which is 0.014" past a british, or CIP no go gauge, so there isn't a hope in hell of the standard barrel ever passing a proof test here.

 

The barrel has a cone breech which is sat OFF the bolt face by 0.080". That is ridiculous and leaves the web unsupported.

 

I,ve fitted a new barrel headspaced at 0.003" to allow for full length resizing and with a breech to bolt face clearance of 0.005". This barrel is a real hammer and more importantly, is now safe, and more accurate for correct dimensions.

 

Its unfair to compare benchrest groups to across the course groups targets though George. Across the course is shot prone, slung up. Benchrest isn't.

 

Having owned and built many 6Br's, i wouldn't put money on one against a 6xc at 600 yards.

 

The hot 6,s are very accurate indeed. I,ve witnessed Jeanette at Diggle on the 300 yards mcqueens regulary put 10 rounds between the huns head eyes for a very tiny group indeed. Its a swiss match I think she shoots, which is very similar.

 

Time [ and some extensive testing ] will tell. The only thing I would say, is that having shot an awful lot of guns, you get an instant feel for a cartridge, or gun, and they just seem to shoot themselves.

 

The 6xc is one of them.

[bradders]

6XC is a modern version of the old High Power favourite, 240NMC

 

As for targets sizes, in High Power the 10 ring is 2 MOA and X ring 1 MOA

[gbal]

Dave,I didn't put my point about 'recorded accuracy' very clearly-I agree that for several reasons-(mine-the size of the scoring bull,yours that the shooting positions are very different-we could add the rifle design/build too)- the large amount of data from competitions etc just isn't comparable-but it does not support the claim that the across the course calibers are more precise-essentially there has not been a level playing field test,but you will fix that-at least for a few rifles.One off examples are legitimate,but nothing like as convincing as say several years of competition success (a la 6PPC at 100y).

I know the hot sixes,and some of the cool ones (eg PPC,BR) are very accurate,indeed precise (repeatable accuracy/group very well). You-or me-or anyone - can just pick the context/contest and find some support for almost any of them.Or one could suggest that .1 moa difference really does not matter eg in a field situation,out to 500yards,or at the very least is a bit down the list of requirements.

After 50+ years of looking,I just don't think the 'one gun man' is always supreme-demonstrably not,anymore than the one wrench mechanic is-indeed he's a liability;or the one car owner.The great white hunter safari guys had some general agreement-though not actual calibres-on the 'minimal' three gun battery,though there was some fudging around the edges (need a 12g,but does that count,and definitely need the heavy double-does the guide's count?).

I very much doubt that we can really get well by with any fewer,unless only one or two disciplines/ranges

are in our portfolio.Fortunately,we don't have to,and skilled smiths can indulge our dreams too!

All part of the fun.When we get experts like GS with divergent views,and continuous developments,let's just accept there is room for various defensible choices.Add cost (effectiveness) to the mix,and it has no unique solution for all. :-)

Gbal

[bradders]

XTC guns aren't built to the same tight tolerances as bench rest and prone bench rest (F Class) guns, i.e. tight necks and minimum headspace etc.

If they were they would be no use.

For XTC you need a gun that is capable of being manipulated in rapid fire, out i the elements with dirt on your ammo, that will get hot and wet and must be reliable.

 

It's a different set of rules in the High Power game

[gbal]

XTC guns aren't built to the same tight tolerances as bench rest and prone bench rest (F Class) guns, i.e. tight necks and minimum headspace etc.

If they were they would be no use.

For XTC you need a gun that is capable of being manipulated in rapid fire, out i the elements with dirt on your ammo, that will get hot and wet and must be reliable.

 

It's a different set of rules in the High Power game

Mark,of course.But that is not enough to justify a claim of more accurate cartridges-that can be tested by chambering BR rifles with that cartridge....there are just different criteria,and much mischief results from being careless in addressing that point.

I'd expect the 6XC to do very well,maybe close to the 6BR.

 

The super XTC rifles are no use for long range bench rest-so what?

 

Is it not better to appreciate what a combo can do,(and state the bull size too) rather than its shortcomings for something it was not optimised for?

(and very few service rifles have been modified from semi auto,to man op ,for military service-rules and regulations etc mandate this,for civilian use-hardly a criticism of the design,or the discipline.)

All this is the 'not a level playing field' issue,essentially-but because it is not 'apples with apples',we should not make any detailed criticisms or unsubstantiated claims from one to the other.There may be other data-eg 223/5.56 in bolt rifles tells us something more about that cartridge's potential,especially for accuracy.

Are Range Rovers better than Red Bull F1 racers?-that is just a badly formulated question. :-)

atb

Gbal

[bradders]

Without going into the pros and cons of the 6XC and XTC vs bench rest, I do know that in the early days of AR adoption over the M14 for High Power XTC, some people played with 6PPC and 6mm Walldog etc, but because they had to run looser tolerances, as well as magazine related sues, they didn't really work.

 

Some years ago I met a guy at the AZ High Power regionals who was shooting a Tubb 2k.

He said he'd rebarrelled it in 6.5XC as he was tired if replacing barrels at sub 2k rds

Said it shot every bit as well, just wasn't as costly to run.

 

Dave, you say you're waiting for N160 to land to do some serious load development......it's already been done for the last 10 years.

Just go and shoot the damn thing

[gunner]

Fantastic.

Many thx for your help.

I went onto the Accurate shooter website and found every bit of info that I am needing.

thx to you both

:-))

That site is V-good , i look regularley for various stuff ! But my heart is here on UKV

[gbal]

Mark,

many very good cartridges won't work in the AR platform,designed as it was for a near 222 mag clone-the 223.

 

It has always seemed to me to be a nonsense to blame either the square peg or the round hole.

They don't fit,that's a given.I'd be more worried if they did! Maths and physics need to be reliable!!

 

What is generally true is that anything that does work in the AR will be more accurate in a bolt gun.But so what-the design and performance criteria ,including accuracy,just differ.Sometimes not a lot,and maybe of little practical consequence.

 

Dave,small primer isn't a guarantee of excellent accuracy (well,not in the old Hornet,anyhow!).The short ,fat case design might offer something in efficiency-maybe in cahoots with a small primer,maybe not!There may well be some balance that just works-and pro rata on those dimensions.But there clearly is more than one permutation that works.I'm not so sure I can just tell-given a PPC cartridge never before seen/read about eg -is it a given that it will be accurate?And maybe rifles-some externally identical rifles just shoot better-one ruger I had shot screamers,but it's not typical of that model ruger!-of course,the crucial components are 'internal',often to the barrel Feel right" ok,or expect to do well,ok ('cos like others that have done well ?).I think there will be exceptions too.Whatever,they all need testing properly.

 

Perhaps less surprise the PPC has some trouble magazine feeding in an AR-the mechanics are just out of sync-that might be predictable.

 

Gbal